|
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob,
Regarding question number 4; the St Croix, here is some information:
'45. Esox masquinongy—The first specimens of muskellunge in Minnesota waters of the St. Croix River drainage were captured in July 1996. They were taken from the St. Croix River in Pine County downstream of Wisconsin’s Clam River by members of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Becker (1983) considered this species common in the St. Croix River north to the Trego Dam. Fago (1992) considered the early St. Croix records uncertain, and Fago and Hatch (1993) listed this species as introduced in the St. Croix River drainage. Lyons et al (2000) implied an historical occurrence in the drainage citing the work of LeBeau (1992) but did identify it as native there. No Minnesota authors recognize this species from the St. Croix River drainage and no authenticated Wisconsin records exist prior to stocking efforts. We consider the present St. Croix population to be the result of introductions. This species also has been introduced into the Otter Tail River system of Red River of the North drainage.' (Minnesota Academy of Science Journal)
This should reduce any concerns about outbreeding depression, according to what the Restoration group has wiitten; that the Mississsippi strain will, when stocked 'over' other stocked populations do better, grow faster, and obtain dominant status over other strains. Since all fish in that water are considered to be introduced and the restoration group has said that the fish introduced from the Spooner hatchery do not reproduce effectively there should be no concern.
Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
Your question as posed tends to try to answer; assumes that the Leech Lake fish will adapt to the waters mentioned and thrive there, and assumes that the fish in 'other areas of the state' are markedly inferior ( which I would contest/question in my area), assumes that the Mississippi strain would perform in 'other areas of the state' as they might in Monona,Petenwell, Wissota and where ever else application and acceptance allows privately assisted stocking, and assumes that other undertakings that were listed in the DNR response and in previous and subsequent writings will not have the desired effect in improving our trophy fishery elsewhere in the state using strains native to those areas. (In other words, your question is leading and implies that your assumptions, opinions, and stated feelings about the DNR and Wisconsin Muskie management are correct and any others are probably not.) The answer to this question will be provided as the fish are/are not successful in test stocking across the state. Why else would the area managers encourage this venture? If successful, and the stocking of 'spots' in Bay of Green Bay and the Winnebago system continues to take off, we will very significantly increase the areas where this particular strain of fish will be available in Wisconsin.
3,7, and 8-
All could be answered from the DNR's response, as those subjects were addressed although not in the detail you request. I will see what responses I get from the folks in charge. Given they are in the field right now I would expect that will take some time.
9-
I believe that the DNR is looking at the ENTIRE state's Muskie management program. I believe that there already were/are changes being made, though admittedly not in step with the Restortation groups demands. I expect that the good folks of NW Wisconsin can look forward to a progressive management overview and resulting plan that will accomplish what the DNR hopes to, and that the largest threat to accomplishing the stated goals is not some shadowy 'conspiracy theory' malarkey, but reduced funding and a nasty case of budget shortfalls. I believe that we, as Muskie anglers, need to support, supplement, and work within the structure of the DNR with the enthusiastic cooperation of the biologists and scientists working there. I've talked to many of the people working on this, and can tell you they ARE enthusiastic and excited about progress towards a better trophy fishery. I believe that NON MUSKIE anglers (who far outnumber us fanatics) could give a tin plated #*^@ what we want, and that has a dampening affect on obtaining larger size limits, new muskie stocking efforts, and other efforts we would like to undertake. I believe that the negaitve and sensationalized tone in almost every single release the Restoration group has printed has been to date counter productive and has created an atmosphere in which it is HARDER, ( no matter what the intent was) not easier to accomplish the goals stated. I believe that this is a result of good intentioned folk who are not experienced with this sort of thing becoming reactionary and intentionally conflicting with political and social structures in acedemia and in State governmental structures in an effort to FORCE an agenda (in the 'court of public opinion', a fickle and unpredictable place to play) and acquire a strong PR platform as an US against THEM sort of thing. I believe that if one truly wants to improve the fishery here in Wisconsin statewide, one needs to focus statewide, and work just as hard locally towards one's main area of interest. I believe that folks lke Cory Painter and Mark Hinz and Mike Roberts will accomplish more working with their local DNR scientists and finding the way to get done what everyone wants than any post here on MuskieFIRST ever will. And, I believe I am cranky because it's raining and cold, and I wanted to go crappie fishing today.
To the last statement, I wouldn't discount or dismiss any debate over the use of a excerpt and it's actual context from a scientific document to draw an untested conclusion then stated as if it is fact or in the very least should be considered fact. But then again, that's me...
 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
'Brian Sloss, a University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point fisheries professor will be conducting the genetic studies, including identifying the genetic structure of Wisconsin's naturally reproducing populations, and where specific strains should be stocked to preserve the genetic integrity of the fish.
"One of the key questions, is, how many brood sources are needed in Wisconsin?" Simonson says. "Within the appropriate geographic areas, we'll use the most appropriate brood source lakes, based on the strain's population traits such as survival, growth, and trophy potential." '
From the DNR page Cory posted. Self explanatory; the results should be what both you and the State are looking for. I'll see what I can do to get answers to the numbered questions from all involved. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
Your response to Bob starts out with incorrect St. Croix information, Minnesota Academy of Science Journal notwithstanding (I have been in contact with them regarding that some time ago). I can cite you references to muskies being NATIVE to the St. Croix as far back as 1886, and can refer you to photo's that appeared in the Mpls. paper in the time frame circa 1920 and reprinted in two different muskellunge books of musky caught from the St. Croix. Another book has an additional reference for muskies in the St. Croix long ago as well. They ARE native there, and are being "restored" with Mississippi River strain by the MN DNR, and Wisconsin should compliment that effort, not hinder it. AND, as for the fish from Bone Lake not reproducing in the "non-native" western Wisconsin lakes that they have been stocked in has absolutely NO BEARING on their ability to reproduce in the"natural-native" muskie water of the St. Croix! A Minnesota DNR Research biologist, too, has a different opinion regarding muskies being native there than the MN Academy, but I'll not drag him into it.
Besides, I don't think the Minnesota boys, nor the guys from western Wisconsin fishing the St. Croix want our runts in there taking up space better filled with fast, large growing Mississippi River fish any more than the Canadian guys want our runts stocked in Lake Superior making the relatively short swim to Sault St. Marie and straight into the North Channel and Georgian Bay!
The rest of your post, while elequent regarding our questions, they were not answered completely or satisfactorily by the DNR, and we request that you not speak for them, rather let them fully and completely address each question posed themselves.
Thank you,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/16/2005 10:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking to a request by Bob on those issues. Here's what he asked:
'And Steve - I'd like to see what your answers would be to the questions above. Just curious..... '
Bob asked my opinion, and I gave it best as I could for the topics I was ready to muse about. I even prefaced that with this comment:
"Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
You posted one post later than Bob:
'Mr. Worrall: As Bob has indicated, it appears you have an open line to the DNR. To add to the list of questions he made for you to get answers to, that have not been forthcoming to date, add the above about "selective egg taking from the 'remnant' large strain fish" and so on.
I answered that the folks I need to talk with are currently in the field, but will do my best, and you then post this:
'The rest of your post, while elequent regarding our questions, they were not answered completely or satisfactorily by the DNR, and we request that you not speak for them, rather let them fully and completely address each question posed themselves.'
Man, what a flip flop.
I believe I outlined my reasoning (which was formed in conversation with others involved in this overall effort) why you can about forget anyone from the DNR 'fully and completely addressing each question posed themselves.' in this thread at this time. This IS something I know a little about, you might accept that I have a 1" group in the bulls eye at 400 yards on this one. I'll keep pointing that out until the behavior changes so it is no longer an issue strangling some lines of communication.
You scold repeatedly about using anecdotal evidence that is CURRENT and my own, but use it from the past from more than 100 years ago at will to vaildate your position. A picture in a book or newspaper from that era, even three or four pictures claiming a fish came from a specific water doesn't make that water a viable muskie fishery or indicate a presence of a population in 1970, for example. There is considerable question right now as to whether many fish were as big as represented in the far more recent past, and indeed if the water listed with the catch was accurate. There have been several big fish already dismissed, and those fish were in multiple books and newspapers. If fish were present there in the 1800's or early 1900's they certainly didn't do well enough for whatever reasons to show up in sampling in later decades, which I am reasonably sure is why that paragraph I posted was printed. I'm NOT saying it's one way or the other, I'm just posting what experts in that field from that area conclude, in their own words. And, by the way, I specifically stated that the issue posted there should REDUCE concern about out breeding depression, by definition. Note also that one mention in that statement DID list Muskies as Native there.
'AND, as for the fish from Bone Lake not reproducing in the "non-native" western Wisconsin lakes that they have been stocked in has absolutely NO BEARING on their ability to reproduce in the"natural-native" muskie water of the St. Croix! '
So, by that you mean that fish stocked from Bone Lake would perform completely differently in the St. Croix or perhaps another river system where muskies are/were naturally occuring than in say, a drainage lake that is actually part of that drainage or another lake where there were no muskies before introduction?
With all due respect, as far as posting answers I might acquire in interviews and conversations with folks from the DNR or anyone else I choose to speak with on the record on this or ANY other issue, I will do so without worrying about approval, permission, or request from the restoration committee.
The entire content of your second paragraph is, in my opinion, part and parcel to this debate.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | It is refreshing to see that others share our point of view. Check out this article from the Vilas County News Review:
KRUEGER
On muskie genetics,
DNR must accept blame
By Kurt Krueger
In The Outdoors
MANY PEOPLE believe the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is too stubborn or too all-knowing — or both — to admit that the agency has unintentionally damaged muskie genetics toward small-strain fish.
Using what Minnesota discovered about its muskie genetics some 20 years ago and the results of their sweeping change in hatchery operations, a small team of Muskies Inc. members is calling for a major restoration effort in Wisconsin.
The new research shows the DNR mixed large-growth and small-growth strains, causing a major decline in the number of trophy fish 50 inches and larger. It also alleges that for the sake of convenience, fisheries personnel have gathered muskellunge eggs mostly from fish with an average length of just 331/2 inches, instead of taking them from longer fish that had proven large-growth potential.
Top DNR officials have both praised and discounted the new research. While they call more emphasis on muskie brood-stock management a great idea, they say the team's proposed restoration plan is overly simplistic.
The scribbler certainly doesn't have the answers, but I think the public would like to hear, just once, an admission from the DNR that they fell asleep at the fisheries biology wheel. Don't hold your breath.
What we got a couple of weeks ago from Mike Staggs, director of the DNR's Bureau of Fisheries, was only that the new research has the department enthused about improving its work.
Stagg didn't even give us a hint of possible wrongdoing — even unintentional — but instead offered excuses about how they've been without a geneticist, low on funds and not pushed by the public to make the issue any sort of priority.
That attitude, I'll tell you, more than anything else, is what bothers people about the DNR. When the public wants accountability, they hear excuses.
As a concerned sportsperson, I pay attention to every idea the department comes up with for improving our fisheries, our hatcheries and our fishing regulations. When push comes to shove, I have always trusted the professionals, the so-called experts, to guide us down the right path.
But not once in recent decades did I ever read where the DNR realized there was a problem with muskie genetics — that many of our lakes are filled with slow-growing fish, many of which aren't genetically capable of hitting 40 inches, let alone 50 inches.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember them trying to convince us of the need for more funding for muskie research, a geneticist, more technicians with which to safely strip eggs from trophy fish, or the purchase of forage minnows for hatchery operations.
The truth is, the agency we entrust to keep pace with the best science and biology for fisheries enhancement had fallen asleep. None of this came up until a group of muskie anglers said “Hey, you've damaged muskie genetics and it's time to reverse it.”
It's very hard to argue with the cold, hard facts. Minnesota noticed the genetics problem in 1982, and made sweeping changes in its hatchery operations.
Data collected through the Muskies Inc. members' fishing contest shows that from 1986 to 1995, Wisconsin anglers reported taking 51 muskies of 50 inches and larger, while Minnesota anglers caught just 38.
But from 1996 to 2003, members reported catching 65 trophies in Wisconsin and a whopping 438 trophy muskies from Minnesota waters. And last year alone, club members in Wisconsin took 15 muskies of 50 inches and larger, while Minnesota waters gave up 163 trophy fish.
It is that disparity that prompted the latest push by Wisconsin anglers to begin a joint program with the DNR to immediately begin a restoratiion project “to isolate and reintroduce the larger muskie that once inhabited the major river-drainage waters.”
What I hear most from the public is an absolute disbelief that fisheries personnel have been stripping eggs for hatchery brood stock from females that averaged a mere 331/2 inches. That is something they see as the most readily recognized agency goof up, and the one easiest to reverse.
I've got a problem with the small-growing muskie strain the department has purposely selected because of its high survival rate in the hatcheries. What we've ended up with in many lakes is an overpopulation of little muskies — too many big predator fish that anglers just keep throwing back.
It's just a theory, but too many moderate-sized muskies puts a strain on available food supplies, which may prevent any of the fish from becoming true trophies.
(Just look at the 10-year history of northern pike management in Butternut and Franklin lakes. A 32-inch size limit increased the number of moderate-sized pike, but hurt other species and didn't produce any more trophy pike than under the previous rules with no size limit).
While muskies prefer to eat rough fish such as suckers and ciscoes, I'm not convinced this overpopulation of moderate-sized muskies isn't taking quite a toll on walleyes, perch and crappies. As an angler who chases other species, I'd prefer a muskie program where there are fewer, larger fish.
It might be a simplistic viewpoint, but the scribbler shares the concerns of muskie guide George Langley and others who believe the DNR's stealing of forage food is hurting the fisheries in many lakes.
Common sense says that taking 13,400 pounds of minnows from 30 lakes in one year is going to have an affect on the forage base and fishery growth rates. Ditto for stripping eggs from hundreds of suckers and returning no hatched fry to the lake.
And when the agency steals that forage year after year, they are hurting our fisheries for the sake of saving some money to feed hatchery muskies. It's got to stop.
As several muskie groups and individual anglers have suggested, it's time for a muskie stamp that generates funds that are used specifically for improving management of muskie brood stock. That is where the money should come from to purchase the fry and minnows needed to feed hatchery muskies.
There are people who criticize the DNR as an agency that won't adopt an idea that isn't their own. They say it took the department 10 years to implement slot size limits that had already been proven successful in other states.
It sure seems they are reluctant to give any credit for the genetics enhancement made by Minnesota's DNR some 23 years ago. By calling the issue “more complicated,” it appears the Wisconsin DNR would prefer that they at least make it look like they reinvent the wheel.
The DNR may never own up to it, but they've damaged muskie genetics by things they've done, and by things they haven't done.
I for one support the concept of improved muskie genetics and also a push toward fewer, larger muskies. Keeping the DNR away from natural forage bases is a no-brainer that will help more than just muskies. |
|
| |
|
| Steve - you stated
"Regarding question number 6-- my answer as an observer:
Your question as posed tends to try to answer; assumes that the Leech Lake fish will adapt to the waters mentioned and thrive there, and assumes that the fish in 'other areas of the state' are markedly inferior ( which I would contest/question in my area), assumes that the Mississippi strain would perform in 'other areas of the state' as they might in Monona,Petenwell, Wissota and where ever else application and acceptance allows privately"
I simply want to know if when the DNR tests growth of two strains, if they will stock the one that grows largest. If not, why study it. If I assume anything, I base the assumption on all available science comparing the growth of Mississippi strains vs. Wisconsin strains in the same waters. (IR418)
Of course the whole study is the DNR reinventing the wheel once again, which simply delays better fishing for another 10 years. As someone who lives in NW Wisconsin, I'm trying to decide if I should support these studies in our Southern and Central waters with a financial contribution. So I ask the question, will one strain growing faster in these lakes trigger changes in Muskie strains used up North? If not ,these studies down South
Do Nothing Really for the people who live in the Northern part of the state.
Secondly, please don't pick and choose what questions you ask the DNR if you truly want to be impartial. Wording of questions is important - otherwise you get answer like "We use wild fish".
Thanks,
Bob Benson
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Bob, I agree, asking the right questions is important. Am I allowed to now? (joke, that was a joke) I'll do my best to get at the facts, that's what we are both interested in anyway.
Larry,
Mr. Krueger is using the same rhetoric covering points belabored here over and over, with some added attack verbage and added innuendo. Is Mr. Kreuger a biologist? Would he understand the technical answers if he was to take the time to discuss each area's current condition with each area's biologists, or have even the slightest grasp on the issues of which he is so critical? Where is the interview with the biologist who is in charge of the Franklin Lake study? Where is the interview, in it's entirety, with Simonson or Avelallemant or Mr. Stagg?
Mr. Ramsell claims this issue is far too complicated for most to understand, and claims the restoration group cooperatively has put in 50 WEEKS of research, (thats FULL TIME at 40 hours a week for a year) to get the information they have. I assure you, it isn't just the Wisconsin based scientists who disagree with some ( and I stress, some, not all) of the groups conclusions, so there, as I have again repeatedly said, must be a middle point there where the facts reside. Mr. Krueger makes statements IMHO that clearly show his understanding of the subject is based on one viewpoint entirely, and his desire in the article is obviously not to discuss the facts of the situation, but to take a good solid swing at the DNR. That's not an unpopular passtime in the papers around here. I get a kick out of the Wisconsin public, he says we need a muskie stamp, yet the muskie stamp was voted down by the very public he attempts to inflame, and the blame for that will go where??? Where was the article before the CC vote that descibed why that stamp was needed, what it would accomplish, and how that might benefit the public? I didn't see that one. Does he have a copy of the internal or public record 'hatchery wish list' on his desk so he knows what the DNR has asked for? He criticizes the process the DNR must use to make changes that will effect the public, yet revells in the fact that system exists. He makes statements about forage that are not supported by what is actually fact. He talks about a Pike management study on a couple lakes in the area, a study I am very familiar with, and arbitrarily draws conclusions he then applies to muskies; but they are in the paper, so they are fact, right? He is critical of a practice the DNR DID admit they need to adjust (they DID say they were wrong there), overstocking, one with which they've already taken action.
Why say all this? To again make a point. When an area biologist publically gives answers that are accurate and factual based upon his work that some folks don't agree with or like, and those folks then out of anger and misplaced bias twist what is said, abuse scientific principle to attempt to discredit, and abuse the biologist publically JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE, the spirit of cooperation will exit stage left in one heck of a hurry. This is a State agency. They have Public Relations folks who handle that sort of thing, and the folks in the trenches don't need to or have to expose thier flank to public abuse.
I'm not saying I disagree with all or even most of the Restoration Committee's points. I don't believe that most of the scientists would totally disagree either. I question the assumptions made by them to FIND OUT HOW THE GROUP REACHED THOSE CONCLUSIONS, as I have NO compelling reason to accept Mr. Ramsell's ideas as concrete fact any more than he has to accept mine. We are both laymen, neither of us are scientists, and as a result, we both are going to make some monumental quantum leaps when trying to apply the scientific literature that is available. I am saying, as loud as I can, that if a minority* of the fishing public wants changes made the public will not care about much or necessarily support, we had better work WITH the folks in the trenches to get that done. Beating them up in public won't get ANYTHING done, and is a ridiculous waste of time and energy.
*(MINORITY-----BIG LETTERS. Lots of folks don't like or care about muskies. Look at the large issue CC votes over the years)
As an aside, look at the huge argument over the Minnesota DNR's handling of the Leech Lake Walleye program, and the angry rhetoric there, read it. It might sound a bit familiar. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I find it very interesting that both you and the DNR will not address or even acknoweledge that questions 1 and 2 on my list even exist.
Let me ask just two questions this time:
1. Does the DNR acknowledge that Big Spider Lake Muskies were stocked into NW Wisconsin brood lakes Bone and LCO in 1956 as indicated in WDNR TB 49?
2. Does the WDNR Recognize that the strain in Big Spider Lake and Mud Callahan exhibit inferior growth potential?
Thanks,
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I find it interesting you don't read my posts very well, and then accuse me of dodging an issue about which I have no information. It's the weekend. I know at least two of the biologists I need to talk to are working on the water today, through the night tonight. In fact, I know of one crew that will put in about 15 hours today.
Note: 8 PM same day:
Looking at the study you are referring to, I see that most of the study fish were LCO brood except for the year you mention, 1956. The document says that LCO fish were used primarily until and after 1956. Big Spider fish were the primary brood stocked in that single year class in LCO and Big Spider, and actually created an anomoly in the study in LCO because of their 'slow growth and exceptional survival'. I do not see any reference to Bone Lake stocked in 1956 with Big Spider fish at that juncture or in any other part of that study. I do see Bone Lake fish stocked in Big Spider did very poorly as did LCO fish, yet Big Spider fish grew slowly with no noticable difference in growth or age at maturity in Big Spider or LCO. I'll read it again tomorrow to see if I can glean anything else from it, and ask several sources what that 1956 year class might mean for the LCO big picture from 1956 to present. If I was to venture a guess,(BIG guess, I'm no expert on this) I'd say the very slow maturation of those fish and the very high mortality of legal muskies at that time, listed in the Methods Evaluation section on page 18 to be at an average age of 9 years, and considering the numbers, the effect would be minimal or moot, but that's just an educated guess. I'll ask the experts as soon as I can, and ask them from three states to get responses from more than one geographical area.
I noticed one other thing, that the Big Spider fish matured as much as 3 years later than the Bone Lake and LCO female fish(average), yet grew much more slowly. That seems to conflict with the concept forwarded earlier in this conversation that early maturation leads to poor growth and smaller fish in a declining spiral, yet the Bone Lake fish matured at about the same rate as the LCO, but grew the fastest of all three.
What are we trying to get at here, Bob? Are we looking at this study and trying to find a smoking gun made in 1956 for slowing growth rates in LCO as of now? Are the growth rates in LCO slower now than before this study? Can you provide me with the literature in it's entirety ( email [email protected]) to show that is the case? I'd appreciate it if you have it on hand; otherwise I'll look around. I need to be sure what questions I'm supposed to ask. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I read your post above about Mr. Krueger real well, and found it the most abusive, mean spirited post I've seen in a long time. Your continued abuse of every single person that questions the DNR is becoming very tiresome (IMHO).
Mr Krueger is a proffessional doing his job, and he does it quite well in my opinion. I think you owe him an apology.
Why must you abuse everyone who tells the truth, while never questioning the folks who dodge the truth.
Have a great Sunday afternoon,
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Define 'the truth', Bob. Just because you believe something to be so, doesn't make it truth, and that applies to both sides of this debate. WHAT IF some of what you believe, for example the accelerated evolution some of your group so strongly suggested was our Big Muskie problem a few short weeks ago, or perhaps the idea that taking spawn from fish later in Oneida County will lead to larger growing fish being stocked turns out in the bright light of good applied science to be less than applicable? This debate has moved from accelerated evolution to the genetics of several strains of muskies, to when and where fish are stocked by whom, when and where and why fish are introduced if they were to specific bodies of water, to when spawn is collected, and then to where ever it is destined to travel next. That's alot of ground, I think. In almost every case, I asked very direct questions, tried to supply good basis in fact where I made personal observations, and did so with a clear view that this is a published document, and I am personally responsible for my commentary. I ask nothing more in return than the same courtesy from the Restoration Committee.
Mr. Krueger may well be correct in some of his published ideas, but might be wrong in some as well. To behave as a 'school yard bully' to make a point is not acceptable journalistic behavior to me unless the article was printed as editorial either supported by the paper or personal. If that article was opinion of the author then the author must accept and expect that there will be editorial viewpoits that conflict.
I didn't abuse the content of that article or the Author, I questioned it. If questions equal abuse that's news to me.
I was observing what IMHO any reasonable person who has no strong opinion one way or another might see written and then posted here by your group as a supporting article, not an op-ed or opinion piece. You can't seriously say the article wasn't a direct attack on the DNR's integrity, perceived honesty, and competence, can you? Do you honestly think that is the atmosphere in which change and cooperation will occur?
Obviouly, the article by Mr. Kreuger is his personal opinion, and my response to it, (which I must say I am entitled to since it was published on this media) was mine. You agree with his tone and commentary, I don't. I did not say if he was correct or incorrect in the context of the statements challenging other's honesty and integrity, I asked associated questions of statements made there about the WHY of his accusations. I asked questions, made observations, and called a spade a spade. It's OK when you the restoration committee publishes like and far more direct commentary, but not OK for me? I don't understand why that would be so. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I didn't say you are not entitled to an opinion. I just thought your post was abusive and mean spirited. If you want people to work together you need to present your opinions in a more tactful manner, and not continually attack those who do not agree with you.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Read that piece by Mr. Krueger again, and then my answer please. I didn't call him a liar, accuse him of stealing, didn't infer he is incompetent or avoiding responsibility, taking irresponsible shortcuts or call him self serving. I wasn't critical of his skills or technique.
I simply pointed out he wrote the entire piece based upon information and statements the truth of which could well be what either side of the issue claims; it's a leap. That's pretty tenuous ground for that strong a rebuke. While doing so, he applied every single facet of my first paragraph here to the DNR. I objected to that. The DNR is not a machine or equasion, it is a group of people who individually deserve the same respect as any other. In this case it's not a matter of anyone agreeing/disagreeing with me, it's a matter of the protocol here at MuskieFIRST and posting permissions. I decided to leave that piece up despite the fact it breaks MuskieFIRST permissions, and posted a rebuttal instead of deleting that post. Sorry if my objection offended you, Bob, but I stand by it.
This is politics, plain and simple, Bob. You and I sound like a Republican and Democratic candidate for Mayor of Mudsville with our back and forth over the last couple days. From this point forward, I'll stick to factual discussion and debate and leave the politics at the door if you folks agree to the same.
I'll get to trying to acquire answers to some of the posted questions this week.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Bob, the Namekagon data I was speaking about came from Mike Vogelsang(sp?). I had heard about two graphs the DNR had been showing at meetings when they where trying to get the 50” limit passed. I had never saw them so I contacted Mike and he mailed me copies of the netting data from pre 50” limit and netting data I think 8 or 9 years after the 50” limit. We moved a year ago and I appeared to have lost the original graphs, I scanned them and posted them either here or on Musky hunter 3 years ago but I can’t find the files either. If I do find them I will try and post them. Otherwise either contact Mike or Bayfield county’s fisheries guy and I bet you can get them. They are just numbers and size from field surveys of the lake.
Here is the response I received from Mr. Avelallemant regarding private stocking of MR or Great Lake muskies in Vilas or Oneida lakes.
“Mississippi or Great lakes strain muskies might be considered outside the native range of muskie in WI at this point. That does NOT include waters in Vilas and Oneida Co. which are in historical musky range. It could potentially include waters in the St. Croix drainage and waters in the central and southern part of the state. I believe there may be some stocking of Miss. strain fish already being considered for Wissota, Petenwell and Monona with plans to develop a studied stocking of these fish in these and possibly a few other waters next year.”
I am not going to consider this issue dead and try and get at least one lake up here stocked with these fish. We need to find the lake. I have a couple in mind. Anybody else have a lake or two that we could maybe make a case for. Steve, Larry, Bob anybody? The way I see it, it needs to be a lake with plenty of forage, pretty much land locked and stocked annually so as not to cause issues with a possible natural population.
Thanks
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 177
Location: Lake Forest, Illinois | Mike,
The largest musky to ever come out of Vilas County, was a 53 lb spotted musky out of North Twin. Big, deep, plenty of forage.....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
Below is part of your post:
"Here is the response I received from Mr. Avelallemant regarding private stocking of MR or Great Lake muskies in Vilas or Oneida lakes."
'Mississippi or Great lakes strain muskies might be considered outside the native range of muskie in WI at this point. That does NOT include waters in Vilas and Oneida Co. which are in historical musky range.'
Mike, if I understand what you want and are trying to do, Mr. Avelallemant's statement is not fully addressing your question. GREAT LAKES strain muskies WERE native to part of the "natural" muskie range in Wisconsin. Check a map. ANY lakes in the northeastern part of Wisconsin that are in the Lake Superior DRAINAGE (eventually drain into Lake Superior) or that drain eventually into Lake Michigan were originally inhabitited with Great Lakes strain fish...unless the lakes were "created" with the indiscriminate stocking that took place from 1874 to 1901 via "milk can" stocking, or were "created" after the Woodruff hatchery was built and in operation since 1901.
Talk to any of the old guides for some of those waters, and see what they have to say about what those lakes "used" to have, and what they have now!
As I noted in a previous post, the Woodruff hatchery is scheduled to raise and stock GREAT LAKES strain muskies in four Lake Michigan drainages this year, as well as seven other lakes in those two drainages...again...with "Unspecified Strain" muskies. And again we ask, WHY aren't ALL Great Lakes drainage waters being stocked with Great Lakes strain muskies?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/18/2005 10:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Sean, I agree I think it is possible that there where some spotted or similar ski in this area to begin with. Many don’t agree with that.
Larry I think Steve was pretty clear as things stand right now no lakes in Vilas/Oneida county will be stocked with MR or GL ski. I will still plan to try and convince them one or two lakes should be tried.
What he said is where the problem is, the WDNR personnel are not convinced that the MR fish are the same fish that where native here, hopefully it can be proven they where. It is possible they where not. Either way they may still work for stocking here even if they are not specifically native, because the lakes are so integrated with foreign fish already. Again I am not advocating stocking only MR fish just some in systems where it makes sense.
Check out the following for all the Wisconsin watershed management you can stand go to the following web site:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/gmu/sidebar/whatis.htm
I have attached a couple maps that are interesting, remember this is direct watershed mapping it is based on drainage not anything else.
For more detail on the above web page go to the State of the Basin Reports under Reports.
Then click on the basin you are interested in on the map.
Under the headwaters basin you can then go to Appendix 6 Watershed Maps and see all the watersheds in detail that contribute to the basin.
Interesting stuff if you are a geek like me. Of course being a civil engineer this stuff is right up my ally considering storm water management is becoming more and more apart of my job.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
(Wisconsin Drainage Basins.jpg)
(GeographicManagementUnits.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Wisconsin Drainage Basins.jpg (20KB - 289 downloads)
GeographicManagementUnits.jpg (27KB - 339 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
My previous post was about GREAT LAKES strains in lakes that drain into the Great Lakes, not Mississippi River strains in those lakes...Larry |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I am one of those 'old guides' and can relate directly to a couple lakes here in Oneida County that drain into either the Pelican or a tributary. The fishing there for big muskies is as good or better than it was from my conversations with anglers who fished those waters for Muskies in in the 40's to the 70's and my experience in the 70's to date. Yes, things have changed, spearing, heavier pressure and harvest, and a stocking program set at the same time a Red Rusty Crayfish infestation wiped out the weed cover and much of the natural reproduction of many species there caused a different approach to catch fish, but I have not seen a decline in the big fish or numbers of big fish. I have seen a larger number of fish from the 30" class to upper 40" class, all matching up with year classes stocked and successful natural reproduction. Are there 50" fish coming out of those waters? Yes. In huge nembers? No, but in numbers that equal or surpass those in 1974 when I first started guiding that water.
The largest fish I can actually PROVE was caught out of Pelican was well under 50#. Enterprise had one speared in a creek during the spawn in the 40's that was pretty big, I'd say from the old photo Gabby (Garner) Ball showed me in about 1974 of that fish it was about 45#. There were several in the 40# class caught scattered across the 90's to date, and a bunch in the lower to mid 30# class. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi Bob,
From the begining I've supported the work you guys are doing and I still think it can be worth while. If WMRP changes its public attacks on the DNR. Now instead of lightening up you are attacking a whole new group the everyday musky angler. You are suppose to be one of the group leaders and instead you consistently make false claims and lambaste anyone who might have a question regarding your groups findings. You sir, have just lost a supporter and if I were you I would learn to keep your comments to professional level. You sir, are driving what ever creditbilty the WMRP had right into the crapper.
Thanks
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike;
I've never seen any record or picture of a spotted fish in any of the waters from this area. Can't say there never was such an animal here, but if there was, there were precious few pictures taken. So I'm guessing that the GL strain the Restoration group wants stocked is the native strain here in Oneida County that has evolved after the Ice Age. I would say the 'naturals' in Pelican or the Wisconsin River would qualify, if that's the case. When Mr. Sloss is finsihed with his work, we should be able to ask him to test a tiny piece of skin from a mount from the 30's and be able to positively identify if it is the same genetic stain as fish caught today. I'd like to test a mount I have in Lakeview Inn and another I have at home to see how those line up, I'm betting they will be identical despite one being a 1984
52" fish that had markings that the 'native' fish seem not to exhibit and the other a 1974 53" fish which is by all probability a native, and a relatively old one at that. Pelican is a class A2 2 lake, indicating an 'action' lake with some natural reproduction supplemented by stocking. |
|
| |
|
| Guys,
If ever a lake in Vilas county qualifies for MR strain fish, it has to be Lac View Desert! After all is it not the headwaters of the Wisconsin River. Back not to long ago this lake was the premier lake to go to.The fish in that lake grew very long in length.I've seen a number of mounts that where in the 55-57" range.The strain that was in there also produced the biggest Tigers in the world when crossed naturally with a northern pike.Something drastically happened with this lake,because of the weed growth in the summer many people avoided this lake during that time and the fish had a refuge.
As for Oneida county,what about all the flowages connected to the Wisconsin River,their use to be some huge fish in all those waters.
The Willow Flowage has to be mentioned,here's a self sustaining strain that spawns at the mouth of Cedar Falls.What strain is this?Does the DNR have a handle on this body of water,perhaps this might be a strain worth looking into!
Then we have the Peshtigo River systems-Caldron Falls,High Falls and others,they all drain to Green Bay.
Shawano Lake I believe drains into the famous Wolf River,which feeds the Winnebago system which feeds Green Bay.What strain are they putting in Shawano Lake?
There are many many bodies of water that I think qualify for MR or GL strain muskys, were just at the tip of the ice berg! |
|
| |
|
| Hunter4
I'm confused about your post. Could you please direct me to what exactly you are refering to here? Can you provide a post #? I'm not able to find what it is your talking about.
Thanks for your help
EJohnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, the fish that people commonly talk about as possibly being a spotted is the 53-12 caught by Mryl McFaul 9/22/53 from North Twin Lake. There is a picture of the beast in Larry’s Compendium 2nd edition on page 353. The tail looks spotted, definitive proof no but something to think about.
I think it makes perfect sense to stock only Great Lakes muskies in waters in the two great lakes basins. If I had to guess this is what we will first see, I hope. As they continue to stock GL fish in the far eastern part of the state and start stocking the extreme northwestern part of the state, and stock MR fish in the southern part of the state, I don’t want the powers to be to forget about the Wisconsin Headwaters and Upper Chippewa basins. Muskies and walleyea where the bread and butter of the tourism industry in these two areas.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mr. Avelallemant's answer to Mike's question was very clear, and wasn't in any way incomplete. Mike asked to stock GL strain here in this area in what is described as the natural range, and Mr. Avelallemant answered no, not at this time, but there were other waters in the state now receiving those fish. Mike intends to convince Mr. Avelallemant to look at a couple waters here. I have immense respect for both of these gentlemen.
Bob,
I spoke to two scientists today about the idea that a single stocking of a year class that exhibited the late maturation/slow growth/exceptional survival of the 1956 Big Spider fish, introduced specifically into the LCO system might cause out breeding depression or other effects as you mention in your LCO, and the 'chain reaction' in your Bone Lake reference. One gentleman agreed to locate and forward more information, and email it to me asap, and offered the same opinion as an out of state fisheries research scientist; that in all probability, there was no outbreeding depression effect. There IS a remote possibility that some effect might be traced and proven in genetic testing/new science that Mr. Sloss at Stevens Point is undertaking. I know you don't want to wait for that data to become available, but when complete this work will allow testing current fish and those mounted years ago, and see if they are indeed the same fish, or somehow different. I'm afraid that we might just have to wait for that data to put this issue to final rest. I intend to do an interview with Mr. Sloss, and will post it in it's entirety in the article section when complete. This is groundbreaking and important work, and I intend for the Muskie community to hear about what this means for management of Muskies here and elsewhere in the future.
Mike,
I assure you, the fisheries managers in Rhinelader and in Woodruff won't forget us here, were too noisy. The statement from Mr. Simonson included our area, and work is already underway to obtain the results desired. Keep after Mr.Avelallemant and see if we can sneak a lake or two in there with some test fish, maybe we can find one out there that is acceptable. If not, then the genetic selection of the very best brood stock from the new scientific work being done should get that job done anyway.
I've seen that picture, it's a stretch, I think, to call that fish a spot. I've had over 100 spotted muskies in the net over my lifetime from different waters, and a number of barred fish as well. I wouldn't say there isn't ANY chance that fish had some GL traits in it's coloration and markings, but as I said, I feel it's a stretch. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Sloss finds in his future testing! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mike:
McFaul's fish is definately spotted! However, it would, if a "true" spot, be Mississippi River strain, rather than a Great Lakes strain.
Mr. Worrall:
Your reply to Bob regarding "outbreeding depression" is intersting. We have heard that elsewhere also. However, what those gentlemen need to consider, is that ever since those Big Spider Lake fish were stocked in LCO and Bone Lake and became mature, they have been spawning those fish, raising them at the hatchery and stocking them right back into Bone and LCO. They didn't "disappear" as some have suggested. We contend that those fish are the ONLY fish they are getting viable eggs from during years they take eggs at 38-42 degrees.
As for the genetic study, we discussed the checking of skin from mounts with Dr. Sloss at the meeting. To TRULY find out what was native, he would HAVE to go back BEFORE "any" stocking was done...an impossibility. The fish from the 30's etc. could easily be mixed or small or large strain fish from hatchery operations. And since most fishermen lie about where they caugh thier fish, what % of "confidence" would be obtained, and finally, how many folks that do have "old" mounts are going to let someone take a piece off of it? To do it for all "presumed" native muskie lakes is an impossible task. Again we maintain, all that the genetic testing will prove is what is there now...and has already been done. And not to beat a dead horse, Dave Neuswanger's march 6th post went contrary to what Simonson said last week. "After 2-4 years of testing, we still won't know about growth, reproduction and behavior," and folks, THAT is what this is all about!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Larry,
There are several factors to be considered when making a statement like that.
1) The Big Spider fish that were stocked into LCO in '56, because of the late maturity of that fish, the professed average mortality at 9 years in that study, and the point of the next statement may not have interbred at all.
2) There is an excellent chance those fish did 'disappear'. The LCO fish and Bone Lake fish matured earlier, grew faster, got bigger, and did so because of their genetic adaptation to LCO. The scientific literature describing that scenario and competition between what is unquestionably a strain adapted to the water from which it was taken and a slower growing, later maturing strain that was not suggests that the Big Spider fish would not be successful in transferring the necessary genetic information to cause the LCO fish to indicate the traits the Big Spider fish indicate through interbreeding to the LCO and Bone Lake fish, and in effect, would simply die off. There are many many examples of this scenario out there with many species of fresh water fish, where a strain of fish was planted 'over' another strain and was not successful. There are a number of reports where the stocked strain was successful, but did not interbreed to any extent. There are also a couple reports showing the interbreeding of two strains of bass that caused a collapse in the fishery because of the combination of genetic code of the two fish.
3) The scientists I spoke with would not state that some interbreeding didn't happen, they stated that it was less than likely a single stocking of those fish would create the situation the WMRT suggests. Would it not be just as possible the genetic makeup of the 1956 LCO fish would be dominant and the opposite be true?
4) Since the scientists I spoke with would not completely rule out ANY scenario, it might be suggested that the WMRT theory is no more or less compelling than the opinion of two esteemed scientists.
5) The amount of tissue needed off a mount is very small, and would not damage the front of the fish. It can be taken off the back, see the photo attached. No one said it would be done to determine every single origin of every single fish. The statement about fishermenr lying about their fish is probably true, and I've made that point more than one time.
5) The WMRT needs to revisit information from Dave Neuswanger or others who clearly understand the study of genetic material and the application of findings to actual behavior and adaptation, and gain a better understanding as to how this information might be discussed and applied. If two fish test out with identical genetic 'coding', and there are a number of fish that also match up exactly, and those fish all exhibit by physical measure strong growth, large size, and good survival, it is then possible to extrapolate that data and stock the 'right' fish. What Mr. Simonson meant, if I am correct, is that by simply looking at the genetic coding in the labratory, one is not able to determine what the adaptation might be of the matching genetics in those fish in the field. One CAN determine the genetic 'origin' by comparison and match of that fish to a population of existing muskies or by the fact 'markers' from an older genetic sample fail to match an existing population, and by exercising some field work which will be in process as a matter of course in Wisconsin anyway, then apply the new scientific information to select the best fish available for each area, to a T. The work that will be done in Stevens Point is not the same as has been done before, as there have been numerous recent advances in genetics research technology and methodology. This work also will create the most comprehensive library of genetic information ever assembled for Muskies.
Attachments
----------------
DSCF0003.JPG (49KB - 295 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Worrall:
You missed my point completely. I was NOT referring necessarily to cross-breeding, although it IS known to happen. My point was that once the Big Spider Lake fish got mature, about 1960 or 1961, it is entirely reasonable to assume that in the egg taking process, especially in Bone Lake, a NON-native lake, they did in fact continuously take eggs from BSL fish, raise them in the hatchery and stock them back into Bone Lake (and LCO) EVERY YEAR. Pretty hard for them to "disappear" when they are continuously propagated!
Even New Jersey gets it, as indicated in the following email I received:
Hello Larry,
"I was talking with Al from Pastika's last Friday and began talking with him about the Wisconsin Muskie Restoration Project. I found it to be some very interesting data to look over. In fact I shared this with an acquaintance of mine from when I lived in New Jersey. Al thought this might be of interest to you, though at the time I wasn't completely certain of the facts.
His name is Ed Washuta and he works for the New Jersey Fisheries department at their freshwater hatchery at Hackettstown. He is their principal biologist and found it very interesting to read. In his reply email he mentioned that they prefer Leech Lake Strain when available. Muskies, Inc. stocked the leech lake strain in Echo Lake and it is the only lake with that strain in it. I believe their state record musky came from that lake. I know it was caught ice fishing. But essentially Ed concluded that what they do in the hatchery may very well have greater impact on the size of the musky in the state as opposed to fishing regulations. Evidently Muskies, Inc. wants to go to a statewide 40" size limit.
Here is a clipping of the email from his response.
Frank --
Thanks for the interesting information. We have had in-house
discussions about muskellunge management recently. Muskies Inc. had
requested a statewide 40-inch minimum in order to foster larger fish.
Our biologists felt that our current regs were providing a lot of 40+
and even a few 50+ muskies, and that a higher size limit was
unnecessary. Reading about the Wisconsin Restoration Project leads me
to believe that it is what we are doing at the hatchery, rather than
regulations, that make the difference.
Muskies Inc had stocked "Leech Lake" stain muskies in one of our lakes
(Echo) a number of years ago, and we prefer to use them rather than our
mixed (NY-PA-MN) brood stocks, when they are available. Echo is the
only lake that has a "pure" stain of the Leech Lake muskies. Muskies
Inc as well as our division, has stocked other lakes with other strains
and we have ended up with mixed brood stocks in most other lakes."
Folks, it IS the FISH. Genetic studies will not change that. The tourism folks I spoke to this morning understand that Wisconsin is losing massive amounts of tourism dollars to Minnesota, and more studies will only further compound the problem.
Again, we contend that the proposed genetic studies, mounts included, will only tell what was or is there...all most likely "milk can stocking (1874-1901) or "hatchery created (1901-present)!"
Hopefully later today or tomorrow we will have our reply to the DNR letter of April 12.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Wisconsin Muskellunge Restoration Team
www.WisconsinMuskyRestoration.org
Edited by Larry Ramsell 4/19/2005 2:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
| The Big Spider fish that were stocked into LCO in 1956 were still showing up 19 YEARS LATER and still in the low 30 inch size range! This is documented and pretty much proves they did not die off in 9 years. Also, as Larry mentioned, it does not matter if these fish were capable of sustaining themselves through natural reproduction or not if man is raising and stocking them. This ensures thier survival. These fish could have very easily survived and grew in numbers in our lakes, including our broodstock lakes, and most likely did just that, thanks to the help of man stripping eggs and milt from them, raising them in our hatchery, and then stocking them back into our lakes year after year after year and on and on........ Afterall, we have gotten to be experts at raising fish in our hatcheries that when stocked back into our waters show extremely poor natural reproduction. Why else would we continously have to stock our broodstock lakes? Without mans help, these undesireable fish probably would have died off in most waters, especially those with northern pike. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. We need to stop raising and stocking a man-made species of fish that eats all the forage, offer anglers an opportunity for numbers and not quality, take up valuable space in our waters that could be better utilized, and remain protected under current size limits for all or most of thier lives because they do not grow.
If we are in fact raising and stocking fish that are capable of growing to large sizes, then why do they not grow when stocked back into LCO under a 50-inch size limit? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I did not read anywhere in that study where BSL fish were stocked directly into Bone Lake in 1956. Please provide the page number and paragraph for my reference on that issue, I'm somehow missing it. If you are inferring that BSL Lake fish were crossed with LCO fish and then planted in Bone, then you are referring to cross breeding. If you are inferring that there was a sustained population of BSL fish in LCO after the '56 stocking that spawns earlier than the LCO fish, and ALL spawn taken from LCO is actually BSL fish ( that couldn't have occured until a minimum period of average at 7 years past the stocking of BSL fish in LCO and then in a theoretical 1st year class in LCO almost 14 years), that's a heck of a stretch. If you are inferring that the BSL fish are taken, and only males from BSL fish are used to fertilize the roe keeping that strain intact then it becomes even more of a stretch, considering that the males and females matured several years later than Bone and LCO fish from BSL, and a large percentage were less than 22"and 30" respectively at that point. That would indicate that competition would be pretty tough on those fish, one might speculate. The laws of averages and probability are strongly against what you're saying. If you are saying that these fish are now taken in a BSL dominant strain every year from Bone Lake, then the numbers begin to stack up against that possibility in comparison to a Power Ball win. Possible, but very unlikely. The genetics research work you continually (and IMHO mistakenly) dismiss will show us if you are correct there, wouldn't you agree?
About 1400 between 20 and 43" fish were collected and studied according to the report from the three bodies of water, the majority of which were reported to be LCO fish. Look at the Minnesota study of four strains, and expected survival at maturation, and then look at the numbers here. As I said, I hope to have more information very soon.
What are the current growth rates of the LCO and Bone Lake fish right now? Do they take as many as 7 years to mature, or as you claimed in previous posts, do Bone Lake Muskies mature much younger and are less desirable to the WMRT as a result? Isn't one of the genetic adaptive traits of the BSL fish slow maturation coupled with slow growth? Isn't one of the traits of the Bone Lake fish the opposite? Would you agree that the LCO fish that were studied in the 50's were at 43" as a maximum in 9 years according to that material? Is there any indication that those fish grew much faster in Bone? Is there a record of LCO native fish growing faster beofre the 50's?
Here's an excerpt from another board about the fish in Bone:
'Bone Lake fish are a inferior strain?. LOL, Do not buy it, and I will tell you why. I have caught more fat fish over 45 inches out of Bone than any other lake in Wi. I stopped counting years ago. I have not found a 1100 acre lake in Wi. that puts out as many LARGE fish per acre. I have at least 5 fish over 48 inches that go 30+ pounds with 1 50 incher. I Have fished the Chip for Muskies just as much in the last 30 years with one 50" also...the average size has been bigger out of Bone. Yes it may have been over stocked (in the past) for the forage base, but there is a huge harvest issue on the lake also. There are many variables that come into play when talking about fish potential. I am with Shane when it comes to the harvest issue. Hard for a fish to get to 50" when its kept at 40" to 45". Guys are cleaning Muskies right at the launch when you pull in.'
The statement from the biologist in New Jersey is interesting and says they like the Leech Lake strain in Echo Lake. It would appear that there are fast growing mixed strain fish in other waters there in New Jersey, and that spawn was taken from them for hatchery use last year. Not too long ago it was insisted one cannot apply reference material or anecdotal material in other than very general terms from biologists from say, Kentucky (or New Jersey?) to the equasion in Wisconsin. I was scolded thouroughly about quoting a Kentucky biologist who I was actually sitting with while I asked questions. Can't have it both ways.
I think we may find we like the Leech Lake strain in Monona, at least that is my hope. Maybe we'll like Leech Lake fish in the Petenwell and other waters where they will be introduced, too, but then again, we don't know for sure. The WMRT has suggested several times we use native strains that grow fast and get big, and the work underway will ensure we do just that and from our own naturally reproducing fish. Let's find out where they are and use them since it wouldn't be proper to use MR fish in the waters in my area. I will have to travel to fish for Leech Lake fish no matter what, but only have to travel a mile to fish for a decent shot at a 50" plus and 40# class muskie from right here in Wisconsin. Those are dandies by any score, and maybe we have a genetic source for the fish we need right down the road from my house. Of course, I am claiming those fish are stocked, and strongly believe that to be the case, but waves on the water sometimes DO make the wind blow, you know.
Showing up in what numbers 19 years later, EO? Can you direct me to the data you are using? What data are you using for growth rates and maximums on Bone for the last decade? Could you please provide a link to that as well? WAS there any inbreeding of the BSL and LCO fish, or is the contention that some of the stocked fish in Bone are BSL and others LCO, which might account for the anecdotal comments from the angler who catches nice fish on Bone regularly? Thanks!
|
|
| |
